National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. vs Messrs. Venkateswara Associates on 26 June, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 473 OF 2017 1. RAJEEV NOHWAR & ANR. Mr. U.V.S. Nowhar R/o. E-1002, 24 Glitterati, Pimple Nilakh, PUNE - 411 057. 2. NEELAM NOHWAR Rajeev Nohwar R/o. E-1002, 24 Glitterati, Pimple Nilakh, PUNE - 411 057 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. MESSRS. VENKATESWARA ASSOCIATES A Registered Partnership Firm, Having Its Office At 301-302 Fortune House, Prabhat Road, Erandawane PUNE - 411 004. ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : MR. JOYDEEP SHARMA, VISHAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE
MR. PRASHANT KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPP. PARTY : MR. RAHUL S. GANDHI, ADVOCATE
Dated : 26 June 2023 ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Joydeep Sharma, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Rajeev Nohwar and Neelam Nohwar have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) provide basic amenities such as water, electricity, sewage line, roads, security etc. as mentioned in paragraph-8 of the complaint, to the project "The Ridge", with clear access to the villa allotted to them; (ii) remove deficiencies in construction of the villa allotted to them; (iii) pay delay compensation, in the form of interest @18% per annum on their deposit, from due date of possession till the date of handing over possession; (iv) pay Rs.1000000/-, as compensation for metal agony and harassment; (v) pay pendent lite and future interest @24% per annum, compounded monthly; (vi) pay litigation costs; and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.
3. The complainants stated that M/s. Venkateswara Associates (the opposite party) was a partnership firm, registered under Partnership Act, 1932 and engaged in business of development and construction of group housing project. The complainants had booked an apartment in another group housing project in the year 2014. However, due to some issues with the builder, the complainants filed CC/346/2014, before this Commission and had no hope to get possession of that apartment in near future. The complainants were living in a rented accommodation with difficulties and were in dire need of their own residence as such they started searching another apartment for purchase. One of the colleague of complainant-1 introduced him with Abhijit Suresh Jadhav, the partner of the opposite party. Abhijit Suresh Jadhav informed to complainant-1 that he was developing a group house project of villas in the name of "The Ridges" at Survey No.385/1, Bhugaon, Tal Mulshi, Pune-412215 and possession would be delivered till March, 2016. Believing upon the representation of the opposite party and considering the villa being a better option, the complainants booked Villa No.C-01, admeasuring 4085 sq.ft. and deposited booking amount of Rs.one crore on 21.03.2015. The opposite party allotted Villa No.C-01 admeasuring 4085 sq.ft., basic sale price of Rs.41499920/- vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 31.03.2015. The complainants discussed with the opposite party for some interior works of their choice, for which, the opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.4500080/- The complainants paid total Rs.46000000/- till 27.04.2015. The opposite party executed an Agreement to Sell dated 30.04.2015, in favour of the complainants. In the agreement again, date of delivery of possession was given as 30.03.2016 and it was also provided that in case of delay, the opposite party would pay Rs.50000/- per month as delay compensation, which was subject enhancement with mutual consent up to Rs.100000/- per month. The opposite party, vide letter dated 04.05.2015 committed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on their deposit till the delivery of possession. However, after taking money, the opposite party stopped finishing work of the villa and failed to deliver possession till 30.03.2016. The project was not within limits of Municipal Corporation, Pune. The opposite party had to develop basic amenities such as water supply, electricity supply, sewage line, roads, security etc. to the project, which were essential for habitation. As per agreement, the opposite party had to provide club house, tennis court, basket-ball court, swimming pool and gym etc., which were not developed. The complainants visited the project and inquired from the opposite party time to time then some assurance had to be given. The opposite party, however, returned Rs.4500080/- in November, 2016, which was deposited by the complainants for interior works. The complainants had a meeting with the partners of the opposite party in November, 2016, in which, they highlighted the deficiencies in construction of the villa, development of the amenities, which were essential for habitation, club related facilities and non-payment of delay compensation but the opposite party did not redress the issues in spite of several emails given by the complainants. In case, the complainants cancelled the booking, then they would be liable to pay capital gain tax with penalty. Then this complaint has been filed on 20.02.2017, claiming deficiency in service.
4. The opposite party filed its written reply on 17.05.2017 and contested the complaint. The opposite party did not dispute booking of the villa, allotment of the villa, execution of agreement to sell. However, deposit of Rs.46000000/-, as stated by the complainants has been disputed. The opposite party stated that in order to develop the township on survey No.385/1, the opposite party obtained permission of Additional Collector, Pune dated 12.09.2012 under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for non-agricultural use of the land. The opposite party applied for sanction of layout plan under the provision of Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001 which was issued on 12.09.2012. Assistant Director, Town & Planning, Pune approved the layout plan for construction of the township on 24.07.2012. The opposite party thereafter started development of township for construction of villas. Various plinths together with exclusive open space around thereto, necessary infrastructure such as internal roads, open space, amenities flora, landscaping, street lights, water supply, sewage/drainage supply, common club house and recreational centre were also started to be developed. At the time when the complainants booked his flat, the substantial construction of villa No.C-01 has already been done. The complainants asked the opposite party for interior finishing according to their own choice. The opposite party has given an estimate of Rs.4500080/-, which was deposited by the complainants but later on the complainants asked the opposite party not to do interior finishing and demanded refund of their money. The opposite party refunded Rs.5 lakhs through cheque No.2829 dated 04.07.2016, Rs.22 lakhs through cheque No.3147 dated 10.10.2016 and Rs.18 lakhs through cheque No.3170 dated 20.10.2016. All the cheques were encashed by the complainant. According to the opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.37131000/- which was acknowledged in the agreement to sale, out of total consideration of Rs.46500000/-. The complainant book fit-out possession for interior finishing on 29.01.2016. After completion of the construction, the opposite party applied for issue of occupation certificate, which was issued on 16.08.2016. The internal as well as external infrastructure, facilities were developed by the opposite party.
5. The complainants filed Rejoinder Reply on 09.03.2018. The complainants filed certain documents i.e. the certificate of registration of the project with Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 04.08.2017, report of government approved valuer dated 14.08.2017, copy of various communications, photographs of the constructions as well as income tax return. The opposite party filed certain documents on 03.11.2018 annexing various maps of layout as approved by the authorities and Architect report dated 13.04.2018 and technical valuation report dated 17.04.2018 as well as photographs of the building. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence of Rajeev Nowhar. The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence of Abhijit Suresh Jadhav. Both the parties have filed their short synopsis of arguments.
6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. According to the complainants the complainant has paid Rs.46000000/- upto 27.04.2015, which included full consideration of the villa and Rs.4500080/- towards interior finishing according to their choice. This fact has been denied by the opposite party. In the provisional allotment letter the total consideration was shown as Rs.46500000/-, out of which, payment of Rs.37131000/- has been acknowledged in the agreement dated 30.04.2015. The opposite party admitted payment of Rs.4500080/- towards interior finishing but stated that it was returned to them through cheque Nos.2829 dated 04.07.2016, 3147 dated 10.10.2016 and 3170 dated 20.10.2016. The complainants have not filed any receipt as proof of payment of Rs.46000000/-, therefore, payment of full consideration is not proved.
7. The opposite party has stated that after taking possession for interior finishing of the villa on 29.01.2016, the complainants engaged Santosh Baheti, an architect, who had changed the civil work and started work of false ceiling. In paragraph-2 of the rejoinder reply although the complainants have denied above facts and stated that construction of villa was complete but basic facilities like water, electricity and road etc. were not available. Payment of Rs.4500080/- towards interior finishing is admitted which has been returned to them through cheque Nos.2829 dated 04.07.2016, 3147 dated 10.10.2016 and 3170 dated 20.10.2016. So far as architect report dated 14.08.2017 is concerned, the flooring, kitchen, doors, windows, wiring and plumbing and other works were found incomplete. It is admitted by the complainants that for interior finishing of their choice, they had given Rs.45,000,80/- as additional amount but this amount has been returned by the opposite party. Therefore, these finishing works had to be done by the complainant. Deficiency in construction is not proved.
8. So far as the development of internal infrastructure like water supply, electricity supply, sewage line, road and security are concerned, according to the opposite party all these infrastructures were developed. The complainants have filed the report submitted to MRERA on 04.08.2017. In this report, it has been mentioned that the internal road & footpaths were developed 80%, water supply 50%, sewerage (chamber, lines, septic tank, STP) 80%, storm water drains 80%, landscaping & tree planting 25%, street lighting 10%, community building 10%, water conservation and rain water harvesting 80% and treatment and disposal of sewage and sullage water 0%. Proposed date of completion was given as 15.08.2019. The complainants have not filed any report to show that even after 15.08.2019, these facilities were not fully developed nor the complainants filed any application for issue of Local Commissioner for obtaining the report in respect of these facilities. Alongwith written synopsis the opposite has filed photographs showing that all the facilities have been developed and the complainants were occupying villa No.C-01. The security guards were also there. Thus, the allegation of the complainant in respect of incomplete infrastructures does not appear to be proved.
9. According to the opposite party the complainants took possession on 29.01.2016 for interior finishing. After completing the construction, "occupation certificate" has been issued on 16.08.2018, which is prima facie proof of completion of the construction. From photographs habitation of the complainants in the villa is proved. The complaint has been filed on various incorrect facts as well as concealing the material fact and is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
..................................................J RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH MEMBER